Write back to them and say that you are not aware of any debt held with Credit Corp and on what basis they say that there is, together with documentation in support.

Yes be aware that the NSW courts have pre-judgment interest set by statute, so as soon as proceedings are issued the rate should drop down - see: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/local_courts/ll_localcourts.nsf/pages/lc_legalresources#Interest%20Rates Obviously if they seek to apply Australian law in the UK then the rules concerning interest also apply. If Stevens Drake are seeking to do otherwise, I would complain to the Law Society. Note that interest rates and conditions vary from state to state.

It does seem that those debts that are very close to limitation simply either get issued immediately, or if the documentation is flaxy Stevens Drake try it on hoping for a payment or acknowledgement. After all, if they had a strong case with paperwork to back it up, they'd just come after you wouldn't they?

It does seem that those debts that are very close to limitation simply either get issued immediately, or if the documentation is flaxy Stevens Drake try it on hoping for a payment or acknowledgement. After all, if they had a strong case with paperwork to back it up, they'd just come after you wouldn't they?

In what state were you living when entering into the credit contract? Have you been served with a Notice of Assignment?I hope to have some news on the licencing/assignment legality argument shortly. Thankfully somebody is testing the waters in this area but it is too early to release any details.

The frequency and times of day that you are being harrassed by Credit Corp fall outside the ASIC debt collection guidelines. They know that you are in the UK and even a Credit Corp idiot will know that there is a time difference. The harassment complaint would normally be handled by ASIC. You can lodge your complaint online quickly and easily at this address:https://www.edge.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/Lodgement/complaintV006/start/complainant

Well it seems as though nobody has anything positive to say about them, so I guess that speaks volumes. Mind you, over the years I have collected many negative comments from http://www.creditcorp.net.au I'm surprised my hair's not curled.

Sorry, I think the updated guidelines (although there has been little change) are at http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=733222&nodeId=701ac447ba70f932e4deaeb83d6e0239&fn=Debt%20collection%20guideline%20reprint%202010.pdf

Or just Google "Queensland UCCC" You might also like to look at the new ASIC debt collection guidelines: http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/Regulatory+guides?openDocument#rg96 Regarding the method and regularity of contact.

You can communicate with them, but always states that you do not admit liability for the debt and that the correspondence is not an admission of liability. Deny that you have any knowledge of the alleged debt and that even if you are liable, there is no evidence that the debt is capable of assignment without production of a copy of the original contract and terms of conditions. Once those finally arrive, query why you have not been served with a Section 80 notice regarding the assignment. For NSW debts, pursuant to Section 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919, notice of any assignment MUST be in writing and MUST be served on you. Queensland gave birth to the UCCC, I suggest you have a good close read of it and look for loop holes and potential breaches that you can use to confuse and delay Stevens Drake. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/REPEALED/C/ConsumCredCode_04B_090622.pdf

Glad to hear you're keeping up the battle. Keep us all up to date (even if it's bad news) so we can proceed on a united front.

And for what it's worth NSW Police confirmed to me on the phone that just because I was in South Australia or Victoria was irrelevant, they are based in NSW. The correspondence is quite clear insofar as it even refers to purchased debts. They're the p00h big time. Keep pushing the point, I'd love to hear the outcome.

The simple answer is this: their offices are in Sydney, where "assignment" allegedly took place. I'm in Victoria and the NSW Police correspondence confirms that they did not hold the requisite licence at the time. If you want to rattle Steven Drake's cage, suggest that you have a preliminary on the issue as to whether the assignment was valid under NSW law. Put them on notice that you will be seeking indemnity costs in the event that they are unsuccessful.

My view is the assignment could be invalid, but I was unable to argue the point because my assignment fell outside the relative dates - I do wish someone would argue the point!

If I had a debt that fell into the unlicensed period I would simply be writing: I enclose herewith copy correspondence from NSW Police dated 18 August 2009 which confirms that your client was not licensed to collect debts, including assigned debts, during the period that the alleged debt that you are pursuing was assigned to your client. In the circumstances, on what basis do you maintain that your client holds good title to this debt? I confirm that the NSW Police correspondence will be put before the Court on the question as to whether the claim has any basis at all, given that your client does not hold title to the debt as they were acting illegally at the time of assignment. I confirm that I will seek indemnity costs in respect of any proceedings issued, given the clear illegal actions of your client.